Intercultural communicative competence: a step beyond communicative competence

ELIA 3, 2002, 85-102 INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: A STEP BEYOND COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE María José Coperías Aguilar Universitat de València The concept of ‘communicative competence’, first proposed by Hymes, referred basically to abilities speakers have in their first language. This term, however, was appropriated and reworked (Canale & Swain 1980; van Ek 1986) within the field of foreign language teaching and new approaches or dimensions (sociolingustic, socio-cultural, social, etc.) were added to the original idea. Consequently, the prescriptive model based upon native speaker competence started to be put into question and the replacement of the native speaker by the intercultural speaker as a reference point for the foreign language learner was suggested (Byram & Zarate 1994). Stemming from all these considerations, a model was proposed (Byram 1997) for Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC), involving one step further in communicative competence. Key words: communicative competence, intercultural speaker, intercultural communicative competence 1. Introduction Several decades ago, Noam Chomsky introduced the concept of linguistic competence as the ideal model for any speaker. In the 70s, Hymes proposed Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada 86 M. J. Coperías Aguilar ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 a new concept, that of communicative competence, which corrected1 and complemented the first term, since the ability to discern when and how to use language in specific contexts was added to sheer linguistic ability when speaking. By paying attention to the way in which the ability to use language appropriately was acquired, Hymes was placing emphasis on sociolinguistic competence, a fundamental concept in the development of communicative language teaching when it was applied to foreign language teaching and learning (Byram, 1997: 7-8). Communicative methodology is basically focused on acquiring the necessary skills to “communicate” and emphasis is given to functions, role playing and real situations - among other aspects - in the learning process. However, according to Claire Kramsch After years of communicative euphoria, some language teachers are becoming dissatisfied with purely functional uses of language. [and] Some are pleading to supplement the traditional acquisition of ‘communication skills’ with some intellectually legitimate, humanistically oriented, cultural ‘content’(1995: 83). Another question that must be taken into account is the fact that communicative competence is based on the ability speakers have in their first language.2 It was only when the term was appropriated by foreign language teaching and taken as its basis that it became an aim for learners, a prescriptive model based upon native speaker competence (Byram, 1995: 56). A third aspect we would like to point out is that foreign language learners nowadays are not limited to contact with speakers of the target language and the country where it is spoken; more and more often they are 1 The idea of communicative competence was also developed in the germanophone world by Habermas; however, his work was much less influential in language teaching, where English is the dominant language, and also probably due to the level of abstraction in his writings (Byram, 1997: 7, 30). 2 When Hymes proposed the term communicative competence he was not thinking of foreign fanguage teaching and learning (Byram, 1997: 9). Intercultural communicative competence. 87 ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 involved in situations where they are mediators between different languages and cultures, and where they have to interpret the world from different points of view. The latter two issues are probably connected with the fact that the present educational system and foreign language courses, mostly based on communicative methodology, have not managed to avoid a certain amount of misunderstanding, arising from cultural rather than linguistic problems. Therefore, there are reasons for us to rethink the concept of communicative competence (Aarup Jensen, 1995: 30). Educational authorities in different countries and at different levels have for some time now been concerned with the objectives that the teaching of a foreign language should achieve. For instance, the law which regulates the educational system in Spain3 establishes that students, apart from being able to understand and produce oral and written messages appropriately in their own language as well as in a foreign language, should also learn to relate with other persons and take part in group activities with tolerant attitudes, overcoming prejudices. This law specifically values the presence of foreign languages in the curriculum as the knowledge of one or several foreign languages is a necessary condition to facilitate intercultural understanding in a world increasingly open to all kinds of international relationships, and it will allow students to expand the field of interpersonal relationships, contributing to the students’ socialization process. In the United Kingdom, a report issued by the educational authorities about the teaching of a foreign language up to the age of sixteen presented similar characteristics. The objectives established were divided into linguistic and literary, and human and social; the latter set aimed at enhancing the social competence of students by fostering sensitivity towards different social and behavioural habits, encouraging positive attitudes towards other countries and those living there, stopping prejudices, awakening interest towards a foreign culture, and stimulating tolerance (quoted by Dueñas, 1997: 143). In the United States, the National Foreign 3 Ley Orgánica de Ordenación del Sistema Educativo (1/1990, 3rd October; later developed in Real Decreto 1345/1991, 6th September). 88 M. J. Coperías Aguilar ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 Language Center (NFLC) at Washington, has defined four basic missions for language teaching/learning in higher education (Steele, 1996: 76). One of these missions is called the general education mission and it seeks to develop, through the study of another language, cultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity, global perspectives, understanding of different modes of apprehending reality, and insight into the workings of language and systems of logic4. 2. Communicative competence for the foreign language student As we have pointed out earlier, when Hymes proposed his theory of communicative competence he was mostly concerned with analysing social interaction and communication within a monolingual (and probably monocultural) group. It was Canale and Swain (1980) in North America and van Ek (1986) in Europe who developed the idea of communicative competence (Byram, 1997: 9). In their seminal article “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing” (1980), Canale and Swain proposed that communicative competence was minimally composed of grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence and communication strategies or strategic competence (1980: 27): Grammatical competence includes the knowledge of lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax, sentence grammar semantics, and phonology (29). Sociolinguistic competence is made up of two different sets of rules: sociocultural and discourse. The former focus on the extent to which certain propositions and communicative functions are appropriate within a given sociocultural context, and the extent to which appropriate attitude and 4 The other three missions are: the applied language mission, which supports the acquisition of task-specific competences for different purposes; the specialist mission, which ensures the continuity of the profession by preparation for graduate study and an academic career; and the heritage preservation mission, which focuses on the maintenance or acquisition of language for the preservation or enrichment of cultural identity (Steele, 1996: 76). Intercultural communicative competence. 89 ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 register or style are conveyed by a particular grammatical form within a given sociocultural context. Rules of discourse are concerned with cohesion and coherence of groups of utterances (30). Finally, strategic competence is made up of verbal and nonverbal communication strategies that the speaker may resort to when breakdowns in communication take place due to performance variables or to insufficient competence. These strategies may relate to grammatical competence (how to paraphrase, how to simplify, etc.) or to sociolinguistic competence (for instance, how to address strangers when unsure of their social status) (3031). A few years later, van Ek placed emphasis on the idea that foreign language teaching is not concerned merely with training in communication skills but must also involve the personal and social development of the learner as an individual, and, therefore, he presented a framework for comprehensive foreign language objectives which included aspects such as social competence, the promotion of autonomy or the development of social responsibility (1986: 33). The model he presented contemplated six dimensions of communicative competence, each of them called competence also. In fact, they are six points of view of a complex phenomenon, which overlap and are mutually dependent. These six competences are: Linguistic competence: The ability to produce and interpret meaningful utterances which are formed in accordance with the rules of the language concerned and bear their conventional meaning ... that meaning which native speakers would normally attach to an utterance when used in isolation (39). Sociolinguistic competence: The awareness of ways in which the choice of language forms ... is determined by such conditions as setting, relationship between communication partners, communicative intention, etc. ... [this] competence covers the relation between linguistic signals and their contextual – or situational – meaning (41). Discourse competence: The abilitiy to use appropriate strategies in the construction and interpretation of texts (47). 90 M. J. Coperías Aguilar ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 Strategic competence: When communication is difficult we have to find ways of ‘getting our meaning across’ or ‘finding out what somebody means’; these are communication strategies, such as rephrasing, asking for clarification (55). Socio-cultural competence: Every language is situated in a sociocultural context and implies the use of a particular reference frame which is partly different from that of the foreign language learner; socio-cultural competence presupposes a certain degree of familiarity with that context (35). Social competence: Involves both the will and the skill to interact with others, involving motivation, attitude, self confidence, empathy and the ability to handle social situations (65). We can observe that both proposals have some aspects in common. Both of them speak about competences within a competence and consider that communicative competence is a complex phenomenon which involves different faces or approaches, which in fact become new competences. Some of these new competences take into consideration the same or very similar contents: What Canale and Swain call grammatical competence is called linguistic competence by van Ek, but both of them have to do with grammatical rules; what Canale and Swain call sociolinguistic competence is split into sociolinguistic and discourse competence by van Ek, but again they consider the same issues; as for strategic competence, van Ek probably took the concept from Canale and Swain. The main difference then is van Ek’s incorporation of two more points of view, socio-cultural and social competence, which take into account values and beliefs, on the one hand, and attitudes and behaviours, on the other. Being a more comprehensive model and more suitable for our purposes, we shall take van Ek’s model as a basis for our future analysis. 3. The Intercultural Speaker Complex and comprehensive as it is, van Ek’s communicative competence model still suffers from some shortcomings. The first one, on which we are Intercultural communicative competence. 91 ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 going to base a great part of this critique, is to take the native speaker as a model. As Byram points out (1997: 10), in linguistic and sociolinguistic competence the native speaker as a model is implicit when there are references to “the rules of the language concerned”, “conventional meaning”, “relationship between communication partners”, and also explicit with the very mention of “native speakers”. And even with respect to sociocultural competence, we also take the native speaker as a reference as the “sociocultural context” mentioned is presumably the native one, and the assumed “certain degree of familiarity with that context” is again native. However, taking the native speaker as a model may not be the right choice and there are several reasons to dismiss him. One reason is that taking the native speaker as a model means creating an impossible target to attain, with the consequent inevitable failure. As Byram explains (1997: 11), the conditions under which a language is learnt and acquired in current educational systems makes the ideal of bilingual speaker an objective difficult to attain. Cook also agrees on the idea “that the prominence of the native speaker in language teaching has obscured the distinctive nature of the successful L2 user and created an unattainable goal for L2 learners” (1999: 185) and she suggests a reconsideration of the learner’s goals as well as the acknowlegement of the student’s cultural and linguistic background. Another reason for dismissing the native speaker as the ideal model is that we may be creating the wrong kind of competence, as the learner would be almost linguistically schizophrenic, relinquishing completely one language and everything else attached to it for another one, in which he would be considered a “native” (Byram, 1997:11-12). The replacement of the native speaker as a reference point for the foreign language learner by the intercultural speaker was already proposed by Byram and Zarate in 1994. The idea is that foreign language learners are individuals who bring with them to their learning experience their sociocultural identity as members of their native culture, and even if they have acquired advanced levels of proficiency, what is conventionally called “native speaker fluency”, they are nonetheless “mediators” between two cultures. The concept of “mediator” includes aspects both linguistic and 92 M. J. Coperías Aguilar ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 cultural; by communicating in a foreign language, the learner is also becoming a dual-culture person whose native culture will always be part of his or her identity (Steele, 1996: 77). We must observe that the change of goal from the native speaker to the intercultural speaker should not in any way be seen as lowering the standards of achievement currently expected of the language learner; it is just a question of changing the point of view and realizing that the competence of the intercultural speaker and the native speaker is not the same linguistically or culturally. In fact, it may be more complex and demanding to become an intercultural speaker than to try to be up to the level of a native speaker since the former is a dynamic concept which has no final goal (Jaeger 2001: 53). In Byram’s words the more desirable outcome is a learner with the ability to see and manage the relationships between themselves and their own cultural beliefs, behaviours and meanings, as expressed in a foreign language, and those of their interlocutors, expressed in the same language – or even a combination of languages - which may be the interlocutors’ native language, or not (1997: 12). This intercultural speaker has the ability to manage communication and interaction between people of different cultural identities and different languages, and he is also able to come out of himself and take another perspective, which will allow him to bring into the interaction different interpretations of reality. In Steele’s opinion (1996: 79), one of the advantages of taking this intercultural speaker as a model is that this concept places the learner at the centre of the teaching and learning process, something that fits with the learner-centred methodology that has been widely adopted as an effective way of teaching a foreign language, as the interaction, implicit in the idea of the intercultural speaker as a mediator between two cultures, places the learner at the centre of the teaching and learning process5. 5 This idea is also present in the theory of Cultural Community Building within English language programmes, proposed – for instance – by Margaret Coffey (1999), where a first Intercultural communicative competence. 93 ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 4. Byram’s model for Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) Whatever linguistic competence learners have in a foreign language, when interaction with a person from a different country takes place, they bring to the situation a general knowledge of the world which will probably include – to a greater or lesser extent - knowledge of the country of the interlocutor. But this knowledge also includes cultural awareness of their own country, which is part of the social identity they bring to the interaction. This is an important factor for the interlocutor, as the question of intercultural interaction is not something that has to do solely with the “visitor” or “foreign” speaker, but also with the “host” or “native” speaker, if this is the case. Even if host speakers will often speak in their native language, they still need the same set of abilities as the guest speakers to understand and maintain relationships between the two cultures (Byram, 1997: 32, 41). Byram (1997: 22) contemplates three possible situations in intercultural communication or interaction: between people of different languages and countries where one is a native speaker of the language used; between people of different languages and countries where the language used is a lingua franca; and between people of the same country but different languages, one of whom is a native speaker of the language used. step in community building is that teachers should give up some control in the classroom and share power with students (28). 100 M. J. Coperías Aguilar ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 6. Conclusion In the same way as linguistic or grammatical competence was considered insufficient at some point and communicative competence was brought to the fore, we should now consider going a step beyond communicative competence and try to make ICC part of our foreign language classes. Jaeger (1995:32) states that the didactics of intercultural communication draws its theoretical background from a wide range of “mother disciplines”: linguistics, foreign language pedagogy, sociology, anthropology or ethnography, among some others, and that its emphasis is on applicational perspectives and its concern with the practice of intercultural encounters. In our present world, where travelling from one country to another has become accessible to a relatively important percentage of people and where we may have to be, directly or indirectly, in touch with people of so many origins and backgrounds, ICC will be an important asset in anyone’s education. Intercultural communicative competence. 101 ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 References Aarup Jensen, A. 1995. “Defining Intercultural Competence for the Adult Learner” in A. Aarup Jensen et al. (eds.) Intercultural Competence (vol. II). Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. 29-41. Berry, J.W. et al. (1992) 1994. Cross-cultural Psychology Research and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brøgger, F.C. 1992. Culture, Language, Text: Culture Studies within the Study of English as a Foreign Language. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Byram, M. 1995. “Acquiring Intercultural Competence. A Review of Learning Theories” in L. Sercu: 53-69. Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. & G. Zarate. 1994. Definitions, objectives and assessment of socio-cultural competence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Canale, M. & M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing”. Applied Linguistics, vol. 1, No 1. 1-47. Coffey, M. 1999. “Building Cultural Community in English Language Programs”. TESOL Journal, 8/2: 26-30. Cook, V. 1999. “Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching”. TESOL Quarterly, 33/2: 185-209. Cortazzi, M. & L. Jin. 1999. “Cultural mirrors. Materials and methods in the EFL classroom” in E. Hinkel (ed.) Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 196-219. Dueñas Vinuesa, M. 1997. El contenido sociocultural de los libros de texto para la enseñanza de la lengua inglesa. Diseño y aplicación de un modelo analítico a una selección de materiales. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Murcia. Jaeger, K. 1995. “Teaching Culture. State of the Art” in L. Sercu: 32-40. 102 M. J. Coperías Aguilar ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102 Jaeger, K. 2001. “The Intercultural Speaker and present-day requirements regarding linguistic and cltural competence”. Sprogforum, 19: 52-56. Kramsch, C. 1995. “The Cultural Component of Language Teaching”, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8 (12): 83-92. Meyer, M. 1991. “Developing Transcultural Competence: Case Studies of Advanced Foreign Language Learners” in Buttjes, D. & M. Byram (eds.), Mediating Languages and Cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Müller, B.D. 1995. “An Intercultural Theory of Teaching German as a Foreign Language”, in Aarup Jensen, A. et al. (eds.), Intercultural Competence, volume II: The Adult Learner. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. 59-76. Mughan, T. 1999. “Intercultural Competence for foreign languages students in higher education”. Language Learning Journal, 20. 59-65. Seelye, H.N. (1984) 1987. Teaching Culture. Strategies for Intercultural Communication. Lincolnwood, Ill.: National Textbook Company. Sercu, L. 1995. Intercultural Competence, volume I: The Secondary School. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. Steele, R. 1996. “Developing Intercultural Competence through Foreign Language Instruction” in J.E. Alatis et al. (eds.), Linguistics, language acquisition, and language variation: Current trends and future prospects. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press: 70-83. Tarp,G. 1995. “Reflections on Culture in Foreign Language Teaching and Exchanges” in L. Sercu. 147-167. Van Ek, J. 1986. Objectives for Foreign Language Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.